Shotgun 1 #476 January 11, 2011 Not replying to anyone in particular, but this seems relevant to the thread: QuoteThe real question in Tucson, though, is why the alleged shooter, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, was allowed to buy the murder weapon in the first place. Beyond the clearly delusional nature of online videos ascribed to him, Loughner was suspended last year from Pima Community College apparently because of mental problems. According to the college, he was told he could return only if he obtained "a mental health clearance indicating, in the opinion of a mental health professional, his presence at the College does not present a danger to himself or others." The Army also denied Loughner's application for unspecified reasons. It's unclear what other organizations or agencies might have been aware of Loughner's dangerous mental state. Still, he passed a background check, and late last year legally bought the 9-mm Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun allegedly used in the shootings. As far back as the Gun Control Act of 1968, there have been federal laws against selling weapons to mentally ill individuals. But the Virginia Tech tragedy in 2007, in which the shooter Cho Seung-Hui was able to pass two federal gun background checks even after a state court ruled that he was dangerously mentally ill, highlighted the need for better record-keeping and interagency communication to enforce those laws. (More than 30 people died in the incident.) Saying that unstable individuals are disqualified from buying firearms is meaningless if the national background-check system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), has no record of their illness. That's why the Brady organization was proud to announce on Friday, just a day before the Tucson shootings, that the number of records of mental illness in the NICS database had more than doubled since Virginia Tech, to more than 1 million records. But there's a problem with that: there should be more than 2 million records in that database, if all the states cooperated fully. According to the Brady organization's records, Arizona was not even the worst offender - at least the state ramped up its reporting somewhat in the wake of Virginia Tech. But still, Arizona's own estimate is that the state has 121,700 records of disqualifying mental illness that should go into the NICS database. From the beginning of 2008 to October 2010, however, it submitted only 4,465 records. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599204144800 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #477 January 11, 2011 Part of the problem is patient privacy laws. Part is the fact that the school has no authority to FORCE a student to take a psych exam.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #478 January 11, 2011 QuoteWhat do other peoples' statements have to do with me? And you don't propose banning guns. You propose doing something else that results in banning guns. How does imposing background checks on private sales result in banning guns? Maybe you should read Shotgun's post and ask if identifying people like Loughner and Cho results in banning guns. You are, ipso facto, suggesting that all gun owners are like Loughner and Cho.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #479 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat do other peoples' statements have to do with me? And you don't propose banning guns. You propose doing something else that results in banning guns. How does imposing background checks on private sales result in banning guns? sure, and if you have nothing to hide, why be against that? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #480 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo if the answer isn't registration, and it's not limiting access to guns, and it's not limiting the number of guns, and it's not limiting the types of guns, does that really mean there is no answer? Are these deaths just an unfortunate (and inevitable) by-product of the right for Americans to own guns? Do you blame the baseball when your young son throws it though a window, too? No, they're the unfortunate and inevitable by-product of people who think it is ok to kill someone. I don't blame guns. Never have. So I guess there really is no answer as there really isn't a problem. If you aren't willing to restrict the individual from buying a gun (anymore than they are restricted now) and you aren't willing to restrict the guns themselves, then the situation remains status quo, is that right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #481 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo if the answer isn't registration, and it's not limiting access to guns, and it's not limiting the number of guns, and it's not limiting the types of guns, does that really mean there is no answer? Are these deaths just an unfortunate (and inevitable) by-product of the right for Americans to own guns? Do you blame the baseball when your young son throws it though a window, too? No, they're the unfortunate and inevitable by-product of people who think it is ok to kill someone. I don't blame guns. Never have. Really? I must have missed the multiple references to murderers in your post instead of guns - can you point them out to me? QuoteSo I guess there really is no answer as there really isn't a problem. Ah, the kallend school of thought - is there a 'baseball problem' when your window gets broken out, or it is a problem with vandals? QuoteIf you aren't willing to restrict the individual from buying a gun (anymore than they are restricted now) and you aren't willing to restrict the guns themselves, then the situation remains status quo, is that right? Maybe you can run down for us all the gun laws that criminals are *currently* abiding by, first.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #482 January 11, 2011 QuoteHow does imposing background checks on private sales result in banning guns? What are the limits of the background checks? QuoteMaybe you should read Shotgun's post and ask if identifying people like Loughner and Cho results in banning guns. No. I read her post. And if you've read the other posts I've made on this you'd see that I have explained that identifying people like Loughner and to a lesser extent Cho necessitates the abrogation of certain rights. Would you suggest that medical records be released and examined thoroughly for anybody who would purchase a gun? That's where psychiatric records would be found, after all. So if you've got somebody who was diagnosed with depression and suicidal ideations in 1994, but nothign since then, then this person is already disposed to psychiatric illness, right? Loughner - to anyone's knowledge - was NEVER diagnosed with anything. The college didn't report him to anyone. (Did you see my post about mandatory reporter?) QuoteYou are, ipso facto, suggesting that all gun owners are like Loughner and Cho. Yes, if you mean that they are subject to the same Constitutional protections, I agree. Which means, ipso factor, you are like Loughner and Cho. So if you want to use my words to compare yourself to them, be my guest. I, however, am not putting this in black and white. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #483 January 11, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote I see, it's OK to bring up cars as an analogy when it appears to suit your purpose, but not when the flaw in the analogy is highlighted. Bit of a double standard you have going there, Mike. Perhaps logic isn't your strong suit. Comparing number of deaths between causes != 'treating guns like cars" Inconvenient when your analogy blows up in your face, isn't it? You're the one with the scorched eyebrows, you tell us. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #484 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteHow does imposing background checks on private sales result in banning guns? What are the limits of the background checks? QuoteMaybe you should read Shotgun's post and ask if identifying people like Loughner and Cho results in banning guns. No. I read her post. And if you've read the other posts I've made on this you'd see that I have explained that identifying people like Loughner and to a lesser extent Cho necessitates the abrogation of certain rights. JUSTICE Scalia (along with a majority of the Supremes) doesn't seem to have a problem with limiting certain rights. I think the opinion of SCOTUS carries more weight than your "the sky will fall" opinion, even if you are a lawyer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #485 January 11, 2011 An excellent summary. Thanks for posting it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #486 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow does imposing background checks on private sales result in banning guns? What are the limits of the background checks? QuoteMaybe you should read Shotgun's post and ask if identifying people like Loughner and Cho results in banning guns. No. I read her post. And if you've read the other posts I've made on this you'd see that I have explained that identifying people like Loughner and to a lesser extent Cho necessitates the abrogation of certain rights. JUSTICE Scalia (along with a majority of the Supremes) doesn't seem to have a problem with limiting certain rights. I think the opinion of SCOTUS carries more weight than your "the sky will fall" opinion, even if you are a lawyer. Yes Limiting being the key not e-limiting as you would propose"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #487 January 11, 2011 Still searching for that non-existent post you claim I made? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #488 January 11, 2011 There are other countries that have what's regarded as a high level of gun ownership per-head-of-population that don't have the same number of incidents concerning nutcases murdering the general population on a regular basis as America has. Where these countries often differ from America is that they don't quite have the same gun cultural issues where people are brought up on the power of the gun, and the gun as an expeditious means of sorting 'problems' out. So weapon proliferation combined with this culture results in continual and numerous incidents of random innocent people being murdered by mad people who, from gun proliferation caused through national cultural issues, had easy access to guns. So the solution is simple; solve the problem of gun proliferation by solving the problem of the gun culture. It doesn't matter how impossibly difficult that may seem, or how impractical such a draconian solution may be, because until such actions are taken effectively, America, as a nation, will continually suffer such mass murders in an ever increasing frequency. As it happens, if I found myself living in certain parts of America I know I could find security from owning a gun...But I'd still be able to recognise my personal gun ownership as being only a low level short term solution to my own perceived personal security problem. People from both sides of the gun-ownership argument should surely see that the proliferation and culture needs dealing with if the slayings are to stop. The political and media aspects of the problem are only secondary to the real causes. And what's the most effective means of reducing the proliferation? Indeed, what's the most effective way of dealing with the gun culture itself? Pretty self-evident I think. It's either that or you accept continual random slayings as the norm for your society. Fuck that. For the sake of a generation being deprived of what's effectively a security blanket, I know what option I'd prefer. Where's the patriotism you're all so famous for? These two issues which are the crux of your problem don't make America great; they condemn you in the most ridiculous fashion amongst the international community. And please don't see my opinion as America bashing - it's far from it, it's my objective point of view. As it's also my opinion that good never comes easy, and almost always requires huge amounts of self-sacrifice and determination. But squabbling like fucking kids over the constitutional right to deadly toys is a fundamental part of the problem. As is equating the fucking things to knives, or, jezusgodinheaven; spoons!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #489 January 11, 2011 Quote Still searching for that non-existent post you claim I made? dont have to everyone knows you support banning you just talk around it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #490 January 11, 2011 Quote Quote Still searching for that non-existent post you claim I made? dont have to everyone knows you support banning you just talk around it Translation: when you said you had posted a link, you were not telling the truth. Admit it - the post you claimed to have linked is simply a figment of your imagination. Just as it was in February, when you made the exact same unfounded and untrue claim, were called on it, and couldn't back it up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #491 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo if the answer isn't registration, and it's not limiting access to guns, and it's not limiting the number of guns, and it's not limiting the types of guns, does that really mean there is no answer? Are these deaths just an unfortunate (and inevitable) by-product of the right for Americans to own guns? Do you blame the baseball when your young son throws it though a window, too? No, they're the unfortunate and inevitable by-product of people who think it is ok to kill someone. I don't blame guns. Never have. Really? I must have missed the multiple references to murderers in your post instead of guns - can you point them out to me? QuoteSo I guess there really is no answer as there really isn't a problem. Ah, the kallend school of thought - is there a 'baseball problem' when your window gets broken out, or it is a problem with vandals? QuoteIf you aren't willing to restrict the individual from buying a gun (anymore than they are restricted now) and you aren't willing to restrict the guns themselves, then the situation remains status quo, is that right? Maybe you can run down for us all the gun laws that criminals are *currently* abiding by, first. OK. Let me ask this. Is there a problem today with criminals being able to legally purchase firearms? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #492 January 11, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Still searching for that non-existent post you claim I made? dont have to everyone knows you support banning you just talk around it Translation: when you said you had posted a link, you were not telling the truth. Admit it - the post you claimed to have linked is simply a figment of your imagination. Just as it was in February, when you made the exact same unfounded and untrue claim, were called on it, and couldn't back it up. When you post your specifics and they prove I am wrong I will I am not going back to prove you a banner again Not worth it but based on others replies to you I am doing just fine"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #493 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteBecause your definition is so broad and expansive, the effect is banning guns. . No, that is just as much a strawman as Mike's arguments. Requiring a background check for private sales does not constitute a gun ban. It just puts them on the same footing as sales by licensed dealers. Doing a more effective check for mental illness does not constitute a gun ban. You have the makings of a lawyer. Oh, wait... I'm not going to bother quoting myself, but I'm going to ask AGAIN. What change do you suggest that would prevent this from happening? What should we do to keep guns out of the hands of loonies? Do you have any specific ideas to improve the current system? I finially saw you put out an idea for changing things on page twenty of the thread, where you mentioned background checks on private sales. Do tell, exaclty what effect that would have had on either Tuscon or VaTech. From what I remember, both purchased their firearms from FFLs. If you want us to discuss your ideas, rather than "strawmen," then tell us where you stand. Give us a real man to talk to, instead of the scarecrow. What is your better idea?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #494 January 11, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Still searching for that non-existent post you claim I made? dont have to everyone knows you support banning you just talk around it Translation: when you said you had posted a link, you were not telling the truth. Admit it - the post you claimed to have linked is simply a figment of your imagination. Just as it was in February, when you made the exact same unfounded and untrue claim, were called on it, and couldn't back it up. When you post your specifics and they prove I am wrong I will Post #465 of this thread. You, OTOH have been completely unable to back up your assertion with the link you *claim* to have, because there isn't any such link.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #495 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause your definition is so broad and expansive, the effect is banning guns. . No, that is just as much a strawman as Mike's arguments. Requiring a background check for private sales does not constitute a gun ban. It just puts them on the same footing as sales by licensed dealers. Doing a more effective check for mental illness does not constitute a gun ban. You have the makings of a lawyer. Oh, wait... I'm not going to bother quoting myself, but I'm going to ask AGAIN. What change do you suggest that would prevent this from happening? What should we do to keep guns out of the hands of loonies? Do you have any specific ideas to improve the current system? I finially saw you put out an idea for changing things on page twenty of the thread, where you mentioned background checks on private sales. Do tell, exaclty what effect that would have had on either Tuscon or VaTech. From what I remember, both purchased their firearms from FFLs. If you want us to discuss your ideas, rather than "strawmen," then tell us where you stand. Give us a real man to talk to, instead of the scarecrow. What is your better idea? 1. AGAIN: Get deniers like you, Mike and Marc to admit that there is a problem. 2. Engage experts in constitutional law, criminology and psychiatry to address the problem.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #496 January 11, 2011 QuoteOK. Let me ask this. Is there a problem today with criminals being able to legally purchase firearms? Per DOJ stats, less than ONE PERCENT of crime guns are from legal purchases. That would be situations like Loehner, where someone that was not barred at the time of purchase later committed a crime. If you have some way to look into the future to see if/when someone is going to commit a crime or go crazy, go ahead and share it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #497 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteOK. Let me ask this. Is there a problem today with criminals being able to legally purchase firearms? Per DOJ stats, less than ONE PERCENT of crime guns are from legal purchases. . Thanks for providing the proof that the laws as currently enacted and enforced are doing a piss-poor job.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #498 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteOK. Let me ask this. Is there a problem today with criminals being able to legally purchase firearms? Per DOJ stats, less than ONE PERCENT of crime guns are from legal purchases. . Thanks for providing the proof that the laws as currently enacted and enforced are doing a piss-poor job. If a student in your class missed only 1% of all the questions and problems. They only were incorrect less than 1% out of all the quizes and test questions you gave them, what would you say about thier performance? Would you call that Piss Poor?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #499 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteOK. Let me ask this. Is there a problem today with criminals being able to legally purchase firearms? Per DOJ stats, less than ONE PERCENT of crime guns are from legal purchases. . Thanks for providing the proof that the laws as currently enacted and enforced are doing a piss-poor job.\ More proof you are for gun banning"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #500 January 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteOK. Let me ask this. Is there a problem today with criminals being able to legally purchase firearms? Per DOJ stats, less than ONE PERCENT of crime guns are from legal purchases. . Thanks for providing the proof that the laws as currently enacted and enforced are doing a piss-poor job. Wrong again - it's not against the law to buy a gun if you have a clean record. It only becomes a crime gun if you later use it to commit a crime. Thanks for providing the the proof that you ignore the other 99% like you always do. Best get snapping on that future telepathy machine, perfesser - it's the only thing that can give your arguments any semblance of veracity.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
